Contents of the FSC-0009.TXT file

FSC-0009

*Nodelist Flag Changes Draft Document

The following is a proposed change to the nodelist. Please send your comments to either Ken Kaplan at 100/22, Ray Gwinn at 109/634, or David Dodell at 114/15. We will not be replying to all comments but wish to get a general feeling from the network about this proposed change.

I proposed that the Nodelist (comment) Flags be replaced with a capabilities identifier.

After all, the bottom line is that we want to know the capabilities of the remote node before it is contacted. If the remote is not capable of performing the desired function, then there is no need to contact it.

The problem(s) with the existing method is that it originally started as a comment field and was not planed. At the time SEAdog was the only "extended protocol" program around. But, along came Opus with a different "extended protocol". I think that additional flags like WZ, BR, WR, etc is only extending the previously unplanned system and will lead to problems in the future. For example, XP today includes file update requests, but XP a year ago did not. So, a node using SEAdog V3.xx will have an XP flag but it is not capable of doing update requests (I think). Thus, XP does not really tell you what the remote node is capable of doing.

The capabilities identifier that I propose will do nothing more than define the program(s) that the remote node is using to accept incoming calls/mail/requests. Some may say that this is nothing more than the product code that already exists in the mail packet. The primary difference is that the capabilities identifier will exist in the nodelist. This means it is available without contacting the remote node, while the product code is not. Also the product code is limited to 256 possibilities.

I assume that it is desired that the nodelist flags field be two non-control characters. If so, then I propose that the capabilities identifier be a two digit, base 36 number. The digits being 0 through 9 and A through Z and are assigned sequentially. For example, Fido may be 01 and Dutchie may be 02. Also note that as defined, XP and WZ are valid. However, I think they should be done away with, and identifiers be assigned starting with 00 (00 meaning generic FTSC net mail protocol).

This number, once converted to binary, can be used by programmers as an index into application specific data bases or tables. One example is a simple program that will tell a user the capabilities of a remote node. Given the node's address and the nodelist, the program could search the nodelist to get the capabilities identifier. Then the program could use that identifier as an index into a data base to obtain the capabilities of the remote node and display them to the user. Another example is a program that can use the identifier as an index into a capabilities table that allows determination in advance that the remote is capable of the desired session prior to contacting it.

Implementation ----------

First, all nodes in the network are assigned a capabilities identifier of 00. This is the capabilities code of a net mail program that meets the basic requirements of the FTSC specification. Once again, the purpose of this identifier (except 00) is to define the program(s) that the node is using to process calls/requests/mail. Also remember that the identifier reflects the mail handler. For example, TBBS with a BINKLEY front end will be identified by its BINKLEY identity.

The program author (or project leader) will request a capabilities identifier from the assigner. Who does the assigning is another subject. Along with the request must be a written and detailed description of all enhances features of the program. Remember, we are dealing with automated contacts between nodes. In this context, the ability of a program to handle 50 simultaneous callers is not an enhanced feature.

The list of features can be provided to other authors so that they may consider a compatible feature. Note, that if the description of the enhanced features is not sufficient for other authors to add a compatible feature, then the program may be assigned the basic 00 capabilities flag. This little enforcement rule has the potential of lifting a tremendous burden of documentation from the FTSC. If the committee accepting the written definition is programmers, the documentation is likely to be understandable. I think the same committee should assigns new capabilities codes (other than those grandfathered). The ego of the program authors would probably insure sufficient documentation for a capabilities identifier other than 00.

After consideration, the FTSC could choose to adopt the definition (possibly modified) as a standard. I feel this gives the a creative programmer's new features a way into the nodelist and the FTSC the ability to consider enhancements with 20/20 hindsight. At the same time, the FTSC must only modify the provided documentation to define a new standard instead of starting from scratch. But, I'm drifting, this is another subject.

If a new revision of the same program has additional capabilities that need to be defined, then the author should request a new capabilities code. There should be a policy that only one or two

revisions back will have individual capabilities identifiers. If revisions more than one or two old are still in use they can be assigned the basic 00 identifier.

The program authors should be required to prominently display the capabilities identifier. This will allow the Sysop to easily provide the identifier to his network coordinator for inclusion in the nodelist. This a basically a take off of the ringer equivalent code that you find in your modem manual.

As I have defined it, the committee that assigns the capabilities identifiers can not reject the new features. They can only reject the documentation of the new features as not being understandable. This should keep most developers happy because no one can tell them not to do something. It should make the job of the FTSC simpler because they will only accept documentation, not create it. The ego's of the developers, anxious to be identified in the nodelist, should keep the documentation flowing to the FTSC.

As pointed out by David Dodell, the same type of identifier can be applied to modems. That is modem 00 can be a 1200 baud Hayes (true) compatible, type 02 can be a USR Courier, etc.

What I have proposed here solves many problems, but not all. For example, there is no way to tell when the wierd BBS has SEAdog running. So, a CM type flag is still required.

I think that 3 flags will take care of everything. One identifies the mail handler, another identifies his modem type and a third should identify when mail/file requests can be accepted.

The other flags ---------

The other two flags would represent mail reception times and modem type.

For example the flag 00 would represent mail can only be received during NMH. Flag 01 would mean mail could be received 24 hours, identical to the meaning of the CM flag now. Other variations could be: